SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Alexandre Boulerice

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • NDP
  • Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 64%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $114,314.06

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)
  • Jan/31/24 7:42:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking our colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for introducing this private member's bill. Generally speaking, convention dictates that one should begin with compliments and then move on to criticisms. However, I am going to do the opposite. I am going to share my criticisms first and then my compliments. I would like to say that this is an extremely interesting bill. However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with it, because it is a bill about us. I am not a big fan of that. I would rather debate a bill about people struggling to pay the rent and buy groceries, or about climate change, our children's future or education. This bill is focused on us, so it is not one of my favourite bills. That said, it touches on a crucial issue. That ends my criticism. This is a crucial issue because it is kind of about who we are as an institution, as a people, as a democracy. This is an opportunity to look at how we can improve things, update and modernize ourselves. The idea is to give people who represent the Quebec nation, the Acadian nation, first nations and the Inuit nation, along with all the different people who come from different places around the world, whether they have been here for several generations or for just a short time, a chance to feel comfortable here, not trapped by archaic practices and outdated institutions that harken back to another time. I am speaking on my own behalf because, today, the NDP caucus has decided that people can vote as they see fit on this issue. We believe that every member should be able to vote freely in accordance with their beliefs and their conscience, with how they see things, in whatever way they feel comfortable, whether they agree or disagree. I think it shows freedom and maturity on our part to be able to have frank and healthy discussions while airing what may be differing opinions. I will therefore speak for myself. It is no secret and no surprise that I am not a fan of the monarchy. To me, swearing an oath to a sovereign, a monarch who, in theory, holds power by the will of God, is something out of the Middle Ages. The fact that it is the monarch of another country does not make it any better, nor any worse. If it were a monarch from Quebec, that would not be any better in my eyes. To me, the idea of inheriting such a title is completely at odds with democratic values. As the French revolutionaries said, men are born free and equal in rights. They did not mention women at the time, but that was in 1789. If what they said is true, then the idea that someone can benefit from such power through a stroke of fate that caused him to be born into that family makes no sense. I want to point out right away that I am not a fan of New Labour. However, I remember when Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, did away with hereditary seats in the House of Lords. One British lord said that that made perfect sense because he did not see why he should inherit the title of lord, the equivalent of a senator in Canada, just because one of his ancestors had partied with the king. That is what it boiled down to. Friends of the king were appointed and were given the aristocratic titles of duke, baron or whatever it was, making them lords. Four hundred years later, that individual, who was in his early thirties or thereabouts, said that it did not make any sense for him to sit in Great Britain's upper chamber simply because he had inherited a title. It is much the same thing with the monarchy. It goes against our democratic values. I for one am very pleased that we are starting off the discussion, as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche very sensibly did, by saying that if some people want to keep swearing an oath to a monarch, they can go right ahead, but now they would have an alternative. They would have the option of swearing an oath to the Constitution, in this case, or maybe to the people or constituents or an institution. I think that is a good thing. I think it is entirely appropriate. It is true that some colleagues in the National Assembly did the work and got the rules changed. I congratulate them and applaud their efforts. Maybe here in Ottawa, we could adjust the clock to 2024, or 1789, and stop the completely outdated and obsolete practice of swearing oaths to a sovereign, a monarch, a king or a queen. If we are true democrats, it seems obvious to me that we should swear an oath to the people, to constituents and to the Constitution. I think that my Liberal Party colleague brought this forward very skilfully. I thank him and congratulate him. I hope that all parliamentarians in this House will pass this bill. There is something deeply offensive and profoundly unjust about the very system of the monarchy, a caste that awards itself privileges, rights, powers and absolutely staggering wealth on the backs of the working men and women. It goes against all democratic principles. If it were a meritocracy, if they at least had to work to achieve that status, that would be something else entirely. At least the people here have worked to become a member of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition, minister or Prime Minister. What is more, we are held accountable every four years, or sometimes every two. We have to go back to our constituents and ask them if they will again give us a mandate to represent them. We must ask them if we did our job well, if we defended them well, if we voted in accordance with their values and principles. Monarchy is not like that at all. People are born into it, and it is theirs for life. It continues in perpetuity. As a member of Parliament, it would be nice to have this option. I hope the bill passes. If I am re-elected to the House, I will be able to take advantage of the option that is presented to me. I would like to say a few words about meritocracy because I talked about monarchy and democracy. We have to recognize that even meritocracy has its issues. Yes, we all worked very hard to be here, as did the people who lead us, but we must not forget that there are very few labourers in parliaments in western democracies. There are not many PSWs or plumbers. There are not many people who work with their hands or do manual labour because meritocracies have their own illusions, too. Generally, people born into families of means that also possess social and cultural capital, relationships, networks and contacts will have easier access to education, to good schools and to the opportunity to use their words to debate and present ideas. Clearly, even a meritocracy has its flaws. I studied sociology, and I want to call my colleagues' attention to the magnum opus of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, which is entitled The Inheritors. It describes the French education system as a system that reproduces class dominance, with the dominant class consisting of people who are already in power, who already have access to knowledge and culture and who already have contacts in the right networks to be able to push and get people into the circles of power. We must not be fooled. As a good socialist, I have a vision that includes working to prevent social reproduction in order to achieve true equality, not an illusion of equality that is merely theoretical, because inequality of various types of capital, as Pierre Bourdieu explained so well, does in fact still exist today. I thank the member for his bill, because it gives us a chance to have this debate and to talk about Pierre Bourdieu in Canada's Parliament.
1365 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)
  • Mar/27/23 8:06:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech. I do not share his concerns or criticisms whatsoever. It seems as though the Conservative Party has been fearmongering for months. Some words are quite loaded and must be used sparingly, words like dictatorship and oppression or talk of civil liberties being limited. I never saw the CRTC do that while attending hearings in my previous life. Is the member opposite aware that his criticisms and comments are not based on anything in the bill, and that individual users can continue to express opinions and share their content on social media? I wonder what exactly he is talking about.
111 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border